2021 Supreme(Raj) 164

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SANDEEP MEHTA, DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA, JJ.
Pola Ram S/o Shri Kurda Ram - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 982/2012
Decided On : 01-07-2021

Point of Law: When it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that Mahesh was abducted by the accused and they took him out of that area, the accused alone knew what happened to him until he was with them. If he was found murdered within a short time after the abduction the permitted reasoning process would enable the court to draw the presumption that the accused have murdered him. Such inference can be disrupted if the accused would tell the court what else happened to Mahesh at least until he was in their custody

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 374(2), 161 and 313 – Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 302 and 201, 364 read with 34 IPC - Indian Evidence Act - Sections 25, 106 and 114 - Offence of murder – Examination of accused - Two sons were born from their wedlock. Smt was working as an A.N.M. and was posted at Primary Health Centre, 10 K.D., Village Rawla and was residing there in the Government accommodation with her husband and sons - Brother-in-law (PW-4) called her brother (PW-1) and informed him had been abducted. On hearing this (PW.1) alongwith his younger brother (PW-6) and cousin Mahaveer (PW-8) started from their village and reached 10 K.D. Village made an enquiry from who replied that in the previous night between quarrel had taken place between him and thus, he had strangled her to death and threw dead body into the D.O.L. canal for destroying evidence. Enquiry was also made from of the Village to leave the job of A.N.M., but she was not agreeing to it and being angered by her resistance - allegations to the SHO Police Station Rawla e basis FIR came to be registered at Police Station, Rawla for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and investigation was commenced - It may be mentioned here that well before the registration of FIR (Ex.P/24), morning at about 6 O’ clock, (PW.10), husband of the village Sarpanch, had given an information (PW.14) that Smt. was missing since previous night and that something untoward might have happened to her at the hands of her husband -

Finding of the Court:

Establishing the afore-narrated circumstances, court has to presume the existence of certain facts - Presumption is a course recognised by law for court to rely on in conditions - Inference as to existence of one fact from existence of some other facts, unless truth of such inference is disproved - Presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts - When inferring existence of a fact from other set of proved facts - court exercises a process of reasoning and reaches a logical conclusion as the most probable position. The above principle has gained legislative recognition in India when Section 114 is incorporated in the Evidence Act - It empowers the court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened - Court while maintaining the conviction under Section 364 read with Section 34 IPC reversed the order of acquittal under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and convicted the accused under the said provision and sentenced them to imprisonment for life - Alleged to have committed murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes placed in dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime - Accused by leading convincing evidence – Court find no merit in this appeal which is rejected as such –

Result: Appeal rejected